MCIAA vs. Lapu-Lapu

MCIAA VS.
Lapu-Lapu (R-U, Glenna)
Facts:
Petitioner, Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) was created by
Congress under Republic Act No. 6958. Upon its creation, petitioner enjoyed exemption
from realty taxes imposed by the National Government or any of its political
subdivision. However, upon the effectivity of the LGC the Supreme Court rendered a
decision that the petitioner is no longer exempt from realty estate taxes.
Respondent City issued to petitioner a Statement of Real Estate Tax assessing the lots
comprising the Mactan International Airport which included the airfield, runway, taxi
way and the lots on which these are built. Petitioner contends that these lots, and the lots
to which they are built, are utilized solely and exclusively for public purposes and are
exempt from real property tax. Petitioner based its claim for exemption on DOJ Opinion
No. 50.
Respondent issued notices of levy on 18 sets of real properties of petitioners. Petitioner

filed a petition for Prohibition, TRO, and a writ of preliminary injunction with RTC
Lapulapu which sought to enjoin respondent City from issuing the warrant of levy against
petitioners properties from selling them at public auction for delinquency in realty tax
obligations.
Petitioner claimed before the RTC that it had discovered that respondent City did not pass
any ordinance authorizing the collection of real property tax, a tax for the special
education fund (SEF), and a penalty interest for its nonpayment. Petitioner argued that
without the corresponding tax ordinances, respondent City could not impose and collect
real property tax, an additional tax for the SEF, and penalty interest from petitioner.
RTC granted the writ of preliminary injunction which was later on lifted upon motion by
the respondents.
RULING OF THE CA: Court of Appeals held that petitioners airport terminal
building, airfield, runway, taxiway, and the lots on which they are situated are not exempt
from real estate tax reasoning as follows: Under the Local Government Code (LGC for
brevity), enacted pursuant to the constitutional mandate of local autonomy, all natural and
juridical persons, including government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs),
instrumentalities and agencies, are no longer exempt from local taxes even if previously
granted an exemption. The only exemptions from local taxes are those specifically
provided under the Code itself, or those enacted through subsequent legislation.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered by us as follows:

a We DECLARE the airport terminal building, the airfield, runway, taxiway and the lots
on which they are situated NOT EXEMPT from the real estate tax imposed by
the respondent City of Lapu-Lapu;
b We DECLARE the imposition and collection of the real estate tax, the additional levy
for the Special Education Fund and the penalty interest as VALID and LEGAL.
However, pursuant to Section 255 of the Local Government Code, respondent city
can only collect an interest of 2% per month on the unpaid tax which total interest
shall, in no case, exceed thirty-six (36) months;
We DECLARE the sale in public auction of the aforesaid properties and the eventual
forfeiture and purchase of the subject property by the respondent City of Lapu-Lapu as
NULL and VOID. However, petitioner MCIAAs property is encumbered only by a
limited lien possessed by the respondent City of Lapu-Lapu in accord with Section 257 of
the Local Government Code.
Issue: Are these properties of the MCIAA subject to real property tax or not?
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation under Section 2(13) of the
Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code because it is not organized as a stock
or non-stock corporation. Neither is MIAA a government-owned or controlled
corporation under Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution because MIAA is not
required to meet the test of economic viability. MIAA is a government instrumentality
vested with corporate powers and performing essential public services pursuant to
Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code. As a
government instrumentality, MIAA is not subject to any kind of tax by local governments
under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. The exception to the exemption in
Section 234(a) does not apply to MIAA because MIAA is not a taxable entity under the
Local Government Code. Such exception applies only if the beneficial use of real
property owned by the Republic is given to a taxable entity.
Finally, the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are properties devoted to public use
and thus are properties of public dominion. Properties of public dominion are owned by
the State or the Republic.
As properties of public dominion owned by the Republic, there is no doubt whatsoever

that the Airport Lands and Buildings are expressly exempt from real estate tax under
Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code. This Court has also repeatedly ruled
that properties of public dominion are not subject to execution or foreclosure sale.
1 Petitioners properties that are actually, solely and exclusively used for public purpose,
consisting of the airport terminal building, airfield, runway, taxiway and the lots
on which they are situated, EXEMPT from real property tax imposed by the City
of Lapu-Lapu.
2 VOID all the real property tax assessments, including the additional tax for the special
education fund and the penalty interest, as well as the final notices of real
property tax delinquencies, issued by the City of Lapu-Lapu on petitioners
properties, except the assessment covering the portions that petitioner has leased
to private parties.
NULL and VOID the sale in public auction of 27 of petitioners properties and the
eventual forfeiture and purchase of the said properties by respondent City of Lapu-Lapu.
We likewise declare VOID the corresponding Certificates of Sale of Delinquent Property
issued to respondent City of Lapu-Lapu.

MCIAA vs. Lapu-Lapu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MCIAA vs. Lapu-Lapu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MCIAA vs. Lapu-Lapu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MCIAA VS.

Lapu-Lapu (R-U, Glenna)

Respondent issued notices of levy on 18 sets of real properties of petitioners. Petitioner

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered by us as follows:

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

As properties of public dominion owned by the Republic, there is no doubt whatsoever

You might also like